What is the impact factor of Journal of the American College of Cardiology?

Journal of the American College of Cardiology has an impact factor of 21.7 (2024). This places it among the top-tier journals in its field with JACC publishes clinical cardiology research that changes practice.

How long does JACC take to review?

Journal of the American College of Cardiology typically takes 14-21 days for initial decision. The full review process involves 6 main stages: pre-submission inquiry (optional but useful), manuscript preparation per jacc guidelines, and peer review.

All Journal Guides

Journal Guide

Journal of the American College of Cardiology Impact Factor 21.7: Publishing Guide

Q: What is the acceptance rate of Journal of the American College of Cardiology?

Journal of the American College of Cardiology has an acceptance rate of ~5%. A common reason for rejection is submitting mechanistic or basic science work. JACC isn't the journal for understanding how a pathway works at the molecular level. Papers focused on animal models, cell biology, or pure mechanisms get desk-rejected almost immediately. Even if your basic science is excellent, it belongs in Circulation Research or a basic science journal. The only exception is when you've got clear human translation data alongside the mechanism work, and even then it's a tough sell.

Q: Is Journal of the American College of Cardiology peer reviewed?

Yes, Journal of the American College of Cardiology is fully peer reviewed. All submissions undergo rigorous peer review by Papers that pass triage go to 2-3 expert reviewers. These are typically established cardiologists and trialists who know the field well. Reviews tend to be detailed and constructive. Expect substantial comments on methodology, clinical relevance, and manuscript clarity. The editors synthesize reviews into a decision letter with specific requests..

Q: What does JACC look for in submissions?

Immediate clinical relevance: JACC editors ask one question before anything else: will this change how I treat my next patient? They're not interested in research that might matter in ten years. You need to show your findings can be implemented now. Papers that succeed often include a clear statement in the discussion about how the results should modify current practice. If you can't articulate the practice change in one sentence, your paper probably isn't ready for JACC.

Q: What should I know before submitting to JACC?

Submit when guidelines are being updated. JACC editors track the guideline development cycle. If you know the heart failure guidelines are being revised next year, studies addressing evidence gaps in that area get extra attention. Time your submission to arrive when your topic is on the ACC's radar. It's not manipulation, it's strategic awareness of what the field needs right now.

JACC is where clinical cardiology shapes real-world practice. If your research won't change how cardiologists treat patients next year, it probably won't make it past the editors.

21.7

Impact Factor (2024)

~5%

Acceptance Rate

14-21 days for initial decision

Time to First Decision

What JACC Publishes

JACC publishes clinical cardiology research that changes practice. That's not a slogan, it's a filter. The editors aren't interested in incremental science or mechanistic work that might someday matter. They're looking for papers that'll be cited in guidelines within three years. You'll find interventional cardiology, heart failure management, arrhythmia treatments, preventive strategies, and imaging advances, but only when those studies produce actionable clinical insights. Basic science gets desk-rejected unless there's an obvious translational bridge to patient care. The journal also runs advanced reviews and expert consensus documents that practicing cardiologists actually read.

Randomized clinical trials that test interventions head-to-head or against standard care, especially those large enough to influence treatment guidelines.
Observational studies from large registries like NCDR or national health databases, but only when they answer questions trials can't address.
Imaging research that changes diagnostic or prognostic approaches, not just technical validation of new modalities.
Prevention and risk stratification studies with direct implications for screening programs or lipid management.
Interventional cardiology advances in PCI, structural heart, and electrophysiology that demonstrate clear patient benefit over existing approaches.

Editor Insight

“I see about 20 manuscripts cross my desk every day, and I reject most of them within minutes. What makes me stop? A clear answer to a question practicing cardiologists actually have. We're not looking for elegant science that might matter someday. We need studies that'll be in next year's guidelines. The single biggest problem I see is scope mismatch. Authors send mechanistic work that belongs in basic science journals, or they send small pilot studies that aren't ready for prime time. If you've got a single-center study with 150 patients, it's probably not JACC material unless you're studying something truly novel. I also reject papers where authors overstate conclusions. When you write that your observational study proves causation, you've lost me. Be honest about limitations. The papers that make it through are almost always from teams who know exactly where their work fits in the field and aren't afraid to say what they don't know yet.”

What JACC Editors Look For

Immediate clinical relevance

JACC editors ask one question before anything else: will this change how I treat my next patient? They're not interested in research that might matter in ten years. You need to show your findings can be implemented now. Papers that succeed often include a clear statement in the discussion about how the results should modify current practice. If you can't articulate the practice change in one sentence, your paper probably isn't ready for JACC.

Adequate sample size and power

Underpowered studies don't survive initial screening. The editors and reviewers know the cardiology literature well enough to spot studies that lack the statistical muscle to support their conclusions. If you're running a randomized trial, you need hundreds to thousands of patients for most endpoints. Registry studies should use the full available dataset, not arbitrary subgroups. Show your power calculations and justify your sample size explicitly.

Methodological rigor that holds up

JACC reviewers are tough on methods. They'll catch selection bias, immortal time bias, and p-hacking. If you're doing propensity matching, explain why it's appropriate and what variables you matched on. For trials, registration and protocol adherence matter. Observational studies need sensitivity analyses that stress-test the main findings. Don't submit until a methodologist has reviewed your approach.

Clear writing without jargon overload

The journal reaches general cardiologists, not just subspecialists in your niche. Your abstract needs to make sense to an interventionalist even if you're writing about heart failure biomarkers. Avoid acronym soup. Define terms that might be unfamiliar outside your subfield. The best JACC papers can be understood by a smart cardiology fellow who isn't in your specific area.

Honest limitations and appropriate conclusions

Overclaiming kills papers here. If your study is observational, don't write conclusions that imply causation. If you studied a selected population, acknowledge the limits of generalizability. Reviewers respect honesty about what a study can and can't prove. They lose trust quickly when authors try to spin limitations or bury them in supplementary material.

Why Papers Get Rejected

These patterns appear repeatedly in manuscripts that don't make it past JACC's editorial review:

Submitting mechanistic or basic science work

JACC isn't the journal for understanding how a pathway works at the molecular level. Papers focused on animal models, cell biology, or pure mechanisms get desk-rejected almost immediately. Even if your basic science is excellent, it belongs in Circulation Research or a basic science journal. The only exception is when you've got clear human translation data alongside the mechanism work, and even then it's a tough sell.

Small single-center studies without external validation

A study from one hospital with 200 patients rarely makes it through peer review. Reviewers immediately question whether findings will replicate elsewhere. If you're limited to single-center data, you need something exceptional, like a novel intervention or unique patient population. Otherwise, combine with another center or wait until you have validation data. The bar is just too high for underpowered local studies.

Burying the clinical message in technical details

Some authors spend so much space on statistical methods or technical descriptions that the clinical message gets lost. Reviewers don't want to hunt for the relevance. Front-load the clinical significance. Make sure your abstract clearly states what should change in practice. If a busy cardiologist can't figure out why your paper matters in two minutes, you've structured it wrong.

Ignoring existing JACC literature on the topic

Editors notice when you don't cite relevant papers they've already published. It suggests you haven't done your homework or you're trying to oversell novelty. Review what JACC has published on your topic in the last five years. Position your work relative to those papers. Show how you're advancing the conversation, not repeating it.

Submitting without addressing potential guideline implications

JACC papers often get referenced in ACC/AHA guidelines. If your work has guideline implications, say so explicitly. If it doesn't, the editors will wonder why it belongs in their journal. You don't need to be writing the next Class I recommendation, but you should show awareness of where your findings fit in the guideline field and what evidence gaps you're addressing.

Does your manuscript avoid these patterns?

The quick diagnostic reads your full manuscript against JACC's criteria and flags the specific issues most likely to cause rejection.

Run Free Readiness Scan →

Insider Tips from JACC Authors

Submit when guidelines are being updated

JACC editors track the guideline development cycle. If you know the heart failure guidelines are being revised next year, studies addressing evidence gaps in that area get extra attention. Time your submission to arrive when your topic is on the ACC's radar. It's not manipulation, it's strategic awareness of what the field needs right now.

Include a visual abstract or central illustration

JACC loves graphical summaries that practicing cardiologists can scan quickly. A well-designed central illustration can push a borderline paper into the accept pile. Don't just throw together a figure, invest in professional-quality graphics that tell your story at a glance. The journal's social media team will use it, which drives readership.

Watch for timing around ACC Scientific Sessions

Papers presented as late-breaking trials at ACC meetings often get fast-tracked for simultaneous JACC publication. If you're presenting late-breaking data, coordinate with the editorial office early. But also know that the months right after ACC can be competitive as everyone rushes to submit their meeting abstracts as full papers.

Consider the JACC family journals for specialized work

JACC has subspecialty journals like JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, JACC: Heart Failure, and JACC: Imaging. Sometimes a paper fits better in a subspecialty journal and you'll have better odds there. The editors occasionally offer transfers to sister journals after rejection from the main journal. It's not a downgrade, these are legitimate venues with strong impact factors.

Emphasize diversity and representation in your study population

The journal is increasingly focused on health equity and representation. If your study includes diverse populations or specifically addresses disparities, highlight this clearly. Conversely, if your population is limited, like single-ethnicity or single-sex, acknowledge this as a limitation rather than ignoring it. Reviewers notice.

The JACC Submission Process

Pre-submission inquiry (optional but useful)

3-7 days for response

For major trials or controversial findings, a brief pre-submission inquiry can save everyone time. Email the editorial office with a 250-word summary. They'll tell you within a week if it's worth a full submission. This isn't required, but it helps for studies that might be too narrow or too basic for the journal's scope.

Manuscript preparation per JACC guidelines

1-2 weeks to prepare properly

Follow the author instructions exactly. JACC wants structured abstracts with specific headings. Word limits are enforced strictly. Format figures according to their specifications, they're picky about resolution and file types. Include ICMJE disclosure forms for all authors. Missing forms delay everything.

Online submission through Editorial Manager

1-2 hours if materials are ready

JACC uses Editorial Manager. You'll upload manuscript files, figure files, and supplementary material separately. The cover letter matters more than at some journals. State clearly why your paper fits JACC and what practice implications it has. Suggest reviewers who know your subfield but aren't collaborators.

Editorial assessment and triage

5-10 days

A handling editor reviews submissions quickly. About 60-70% get desk-rejected without peer review. If the science is solid but the fit is wrong, you might get a transfer offer to a JACC family journal. Desk rejections come fast, usually within a week. If you haven't heard in two weeks, you're probably going to peer review.

Peer review

3-6 weeks

Papers that pass triage go to 2-3 expert reviewers. These are typically established cardiologists and trialists who know the field well. Reviews tend to be detailed and constructive. Expect substantial comments on methodology, clinical relevance, and manuscript clarity. The editors synthesize reviews into a decision letter with specific requests.

Revision and decision

2-4 weeks after revision submitted

Revisions go back to reviewers in most cases. Address every comment specifically in a point-by-point response. Don't argue aggressively with reviewers, they're usually right about weaknesses. Most papers need one revision round, sometimes two. Final decisions come from the editors after re-review.

JACC by the Numbers

Impact Factor (2024)(Consistently among the top 3 cardiology journals globally)	21.7
Acceptance Rate(Approximately 6,000+ submissions annually, extremely selective)	~5%
Time to First Decision(Fast initial decisions, especially for desk rejections)	14-21 days
Time to Publication(Online First appears within weeks of acceptance)	4-6 months
Citation Half-Life(JACC papers continue being cited for decades, especially trials)	>10 years
Guideline Citations(JACC papers frequently referenced in ACC/AHA clinical guidelines)	High

Before you submit

JACC accepts a small fraction of submissions. Make your attempt count.

The pre-submission diagnostic runs a live literature search, scores your manuscript section by section, and gives you a prioritized fix list calibrated to JACC. ~30 minutes.

Run Free Readiness Scan See a sample report

Article Types

Original Investigation

3,000-5,000 words

Full research articles including clinical trials, observational studies, and large registry analyses. These make up most of the journal's content.

advanced Review

5,000-7,000 words

Authoritative reviews on important clinical topics, typically invited but proposals considered. These require expertise and a fresh perspective on the topic.

Expert Consensus Decision Pathway

Variable

Formal guidance documents developed with ACC committees. These aren't open submissions but collaborative projects initiated through ACC structures.

Research Letter

1,000-1,500 words

Brief reports of preliminary findings or focused analyses. Useful for hypothesis-generating work that's not ready for full investigation format.

Viewpoint

1,500-2,000 words

Opinion pieces on controversies or emerging issues in cardiology. Usually invited, but strong proposals sometimes accepted.

Landmark JACC Papers

Papers that defined fields and changed science:

Greenland et al., 2010 - Published detailed ACCF/AHA guidelines for cardiovascular risk assessment in asymptomatic adults
Wong et al., 2019 - Combined circulating microRNA and NT-proBNP to detect cardiac dysfunction in community populations
Levy et al., 2014 - Established the role of myocardial fibrosis in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
Maron et al., 2018 - Updated diagnostic criteria for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy based on contemporary imaging
Solomon et al., 2019 - PARAGON-HF trial results on sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF that informed subsequent guideline recommendations

Preparing a JACC Submission?

Get pre-submission feedback from reviewers who've published in JACC and know exactly what editors look for.

Run Free Readiness Scan

Need expert depth? Human review from $1,000

NDA-protected

Confidential

Primary Fields

Interventional cardiology and PCI outcomesHeart failure diagnosis and managementArrhythmia treatment and electrophysiologyPreventive cardiology and risk assessmentCardiovascular imaging applicationsStructural heart disease interventionsAcute coronary syndromesLipid management and atherosclerosisCardiomyopathies and genetic heart diseaseHealthcare delivery and outcomes research

Related Journal Guides

All journal guides

All articles

Ready to submit to JACC?

A desk rejection costs months. Get expert feedback before you submit, from scientists who know exactly what JACC editors look for.

Need field-expert depth? Human review from $1,000